The Secretary's Commission on Opportunity in Athletics has begun the arduous process of framing its report, which is due to U.S. Secretary of Education Rod Paige at the end of January.

The 15-member commission, announced by Paige in June, wrapped up four town hall meetings last month in which it heard public comment on Title IX, the federal legislation that prohibits sex discrimination in education. Work on the actual report began December 3-4 in Philadelphia.

Since August, the commission has heard from a variety of individuals and organizations regarding Title IX implementation. (See coverage of each town hall meeting in previous issues of The NCAA News.)

The session in Philadelphia was the first meeting of the commission in which the group heard no public comment. Instead, it focused solely on its own members' discussion of possible changes to Title IX implementation.

"I think we may be headed toward sweeping changes in the enforcement of Title IX," commission co-Chair Ted Leland told USA Today. "This could potentially change the way ... universities do business."

Paige had assigned the commission seven questions (see accompanying sidebar). Much of the group's time in Philadelphia was devoted to discussing the commission's findings on those questions.

In addition, each commission member offered possible recommendations, many of which -- if ultimately adopted by the Department of Education -- would drastically change how Title IX is implemented.

Proposed recommendations

Many of the issues debated in the town hall meetings emerged in the recommendations: proportionality, interest surveys, walk-ons, roster management, and additional education on the existing three prongs of Title IX compliance (proportionality, showing a history of continuing expansion of programs for the underrepresented gender, and accommodation of interests and abilities of the underrepresented gender).

Several recommendations focused on somehow loosening the proportionality prong of Title IX, which currently requires institutions to offer a number of athletics opportunities, by gender, proportionate to the number of enrolled undergraduates, by gender, at the school.

Leland, the director of athletics at Stanford University, suggested that colleges be permitted to count participation opportunities by setting standards per sport. For example, he suggested setting soccer at 30 opportunities, and if 40 men come out for soccer and 25 women, then the school could still count 30 for both men and women.

"My thought would be to use the average number of participants in the NCAA statistics," Leland said. "I think this eliminates having to cap men's sports and eliminates false opportunities for women. This is a suggestion to OCR as an alternative way of meeting proportionality."

Leland's recommendation seemed to be a response to those who have testified before the commission that men's walk-on opportunities have been limited, in part due to a dynamic where men may be more willing than women to walk on to a team and stay on the roster without scholarship aid.

However, Julie Foudy, president of the Women's Sports Foundation and a professional soccer player, noted that this type of an arrangement might lead to inequities because of an imbalance in recruiting expenditures in intercollegiate athletics. Foudy cited statistics from the NCAA Gender-Equity Study indicating that women receive only 32 percent of recruiting dollars.

Deborah Yow, athletics director at the University of Maryland, College Park, proposed a new standard for proportionality, along with the removal of prong two (which currently permits institutions to show compliance by showing a history and continuing practice of program expansion for the underrepresented gender).

She suggested that colleges be held to a 50-50 standard for athletics opportunities by gender, with a 5 to 7 percent allowable variance.

"It provides the wiggle room for the walk-ons, the transfers and the drop outs. It would vastly improve the outlook for women in sports," Yow said. "The worst it can get is 53 percent male and 46 percent female athletes. You know that 46 percent (female athletes) is an admirable target for schools. There would be no need for surveys, or the measure of undergraduate participation. You don't worry about any other prong."

After further discussion, commission members agreed to consider permitting a maximum 14 percent gap between the genders.

Bob Bowlsby, athletics director at the University of Iowa, suggested an additional part to proportionality that would permit an institution to achieve compliance with that prong if its proportion of female student-athletes is at least three percentage points higher than the proportion of female athletes at high schools in its region.

Muffet McGraw, head women's basketball coach at the University of Notre Dame, suggested that in seeking compliance with proportionality, institutions be permitted to count students of traditional age rather than all undergraduates in the student body.

That recommendation would remove from the calculation nontraditional students, who are less likely to have time for athletics. It's expected that a change of that sort also would result in fewer female students in the calculation, since the commission has heard testimony that more nontraditional students are female.

The question of interest also emerged in recommendations for proposed changes.

Gerald Reynolds, assistant secretary for the Office for Civil Rights and an ex officio member of the commission, also suggested that OCR develop and "bless" an interest survey to be used as part of or perhaps in lieu of the proportionality prong.

Commission co-Chair Cynthia Cooper, a former WNBA player, suggested that the Office for Civil Rights conduct interest surveys. She suggested that the proportionality prong be changed so that institutions would be required to offer opportunities in proportion to men's and women's interest in sports rather than in proportion to the gender composition of the undergraduate population.

Some commission members voiced concerns with that approach, including Foudy.

"It reminds me of the days that women had to prove they wanted to vote, own property or go to medical school," Foudy said. "It creates a double standard that takes us to a day when women have to prove they are as interested (in sports), when we have created a vacuum for opportunities. You are creating a way to freeze that hypocrisy in place for that discrimination.

"The thought process that women have to prove they are interested takes us back many years."

Reynolds disagreed.

"My first point is that this is not the demand that women prove anything," he said. "It is for men and women to indicate interests. It will change over the years and vary by campus. It will not freeze anything into place."

Other ideas ranged from better defining and explaining the three-part test to redesigning the Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act (EADA) forms to permit institutions to report their compliance with the second and third prongs.

Percy Bates, faculty athletics representative at the University of Michigan, recommended a clarification of the existing three-part test and also the establishment of consistent interpretation and enforcement among regional offices of OCR. He also suggested that the Department of Education establish clear penalties for institutions not complying with Title IX.

Foudy also suggested that the commission issue a recommendation that universities seek ways to curb excessive expenditures, particularly in sports such as football and men's basketball.

Lisa Graham Keegan, chief executive officer of the Education Leadership Council, and Mike Slive, commissioner of the Southeastern Conference, did not attend the meeting.

Rita Simon, professor at American University, and Donna de Varona, broadcaster and chair of the USOC Government Relations Committee, attended part of the meeting.The commission will meet again January 8 in Washington, D.C., to further discuss its recommendations.

It also will review a preliminary draft of the report that will be prepared by Department of Education staff with input from four commissioners: de Varona, Simon, Bates and Thomas Griffith.

The January 8 meeting again will be open to the public, but there will be no opportunity for public comment. A final draft of the report is expected at the end of January.

Commission tackles seven-fold inquiry

The commission's charge will be to submit a report to Education Secretary Rod Paige not later than January 31, 2003, that addresses the availability of athletics opportunities at the secondary school and college levels. Its focus will include, but will not be limited to, Title IX's standards for assessing equal opportunity in athletics. Questions that the commission will address are:

Are Title IX standards for assessing equal opportunity in athletics working to promote opportunities for male and female athletes?

Is there adequate Title IX guidance that enables colleges and school districts to know what is expected of them and to plan for an athletics program that effectively meets the needs and interests of their students?

Is further guidance (or other steps) needed at the junior and senior high-school levels, where the availability or absence of opportunities will critically affect the prospective interests and abilities of student-athletes when they reach college age?

How should activities such as cheerleading or bowling factor into the analysis of equitable opportunities?

How do revenue-producing and large-roster teams affect the provision of equal athletics opportunities? Whereas some men athletes will "walk on" to intercollegiate teams -- without athletics financial aid and without having been recruited -- women rarely do this. Is this accurate and, if so, what are the implications for Title IX analysis?

In what ways do opportunities in other sports settings, such as the Olympics, professional leagues and community recreation programs, interact with the obligations of colleges and school districts to provide equal athletics opportunity? What are the implications for Title IX?

Apart from Title IX enforcement, are there other efforts to promote athletics opportunities for male and female students, such as public-private partnerships to support the efforts of schools and colleges in this area?

Commission

Members of the Commission on Opportunity in Athletics:

Percy Bates, faculty athletics representative, University of Michigan

Bob Bowlsby, director of athletics, University of Iowa

Cynthia Cooper, former professional player, Women's National Basketball Association

Gene DeFilippo, director of athletics director, Boston College

Donna de Varona, chair, USOC Government Relations Committee

Julie Foudy, president, Women's Sports Foundation

Thomas Griffith, assistant secretary and general counsel, Brigham Young University

Cary Groth, director of athletics, Northern Illinois University

Lisa Graham Keegan, CEO, Education Leadership Council

Ted Leland, director of athletics, Stanford University

Muffet McGraw, head women's basketball coach, University of Notre Dame

Mike Slive, commissioner, Southeastern Conference

Rita Simon, professor, American University School of Public Affairs and Washington College of Law.

Graham Spanier, president, Pennsylvania State University

Deborah Yow, director of athletics, University of Maryland, College Park

Title IX Q&A

Frequently asked questions about NCAA and related statistics regarding athletics participation:

Overall participation

Q How many men and how many women participate in NCAA athletics?

A The most recent participation study from the NCAA reports 206,573 men (58 percent) participating in NCAA championship sports and 149,115 women (42 percent) participating in NCAA championship sports. That number is down slightly for men and up slightly for women in 1999-2000. That year, 208,481 men (59 percent) participated and 146,617 women (41 percent) participated. In 1981-82, the first year the NCAA offered championships for women, there were 167,055 men (72 percent) participating and 64,390 women (28 percent) participating in NCAA athletics.

(Source: NCAA 1982-2001 Sports Sponsorship Participation Report.)

* *

Q What are the General Accounting Office numbers I've heard about?

A Because of concerns that the NCAA numbers included institutions reclassifying from the National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics to the NCAA (perhaps hiding a decrease in men's opportunities), members of Congress asked the U.S. General Accounting Office to study participation in athletics. The 2001 GAO report calculated participants at all four-year colleges and universities that were members of either the NCAA or the NAIA.

(Source: United States General Accounting Office Report to Congressional Requesters, March 2001, Intercollegiate Athletics: Four-Year Colleges' Experiences Adding and Discontinuing Teams.)

* *

Q Has the number of men participating in intercollegiate athletics declined or increased since 1981-82?

A According to the GAO report, which accounts for all intercollegiate athletics opportunities, the number of male participants has increased by 5 percent since 1981-82.

(Source: United States General Accounting Office Report to Congressional Requesters, March 2001, Intercollegiate Athletics: Four-Year Colleges' Experiences Adding and Discontinuing Teams.)

* *

Q Has the average number of men participating at each NCAA institution declined?

A Yes. The number of male student-athletes per campus -- in all NCAA divisions -- was 199.1 in 2000-01, down from 215.8 in 1981-82. The average number of female athletes per campus was 143.9 in 2000-01, up from 94.3 in 1981-82. The average number of student-athletes per campus has increased, from 310.1 in 1981-82 to 343.0 in 2000-01.

(Source: NCAA 1982-2001 Sports Sponsorship Participation Report.)

* *

Q Are there more men's teams or more women's teams at NCAA member schools?

A There are more total women's teams yet more male participants because there are more males per team. In 2000-01, there were 7,737 men's teams with a total of 206,573 participants and 8,312 women's teams with a total of 149,115 participants.

(Source: NCAA 1982-2001 Sports Sponsorship Participation Report.)

* *

Q What does the GAO report show for the numbers of men's and women's teams?

A The GAO report, which counts all four-year institutions, shows 9,479 women's teams in 1999-98, up 66 percent from 1981-82, and 9,149 men's teams in 1999-98, up 0.4 percent from 1981-82.

(Source: United States General Accounting Office Report to Congressional Requesters, March 2001, Intercollegiate Athletics: Four-Year Colleges' Experiences Adding and Discontinuing Teams.)

Sport-specific participation

Q Has there been a decline in the number of NCAA institutions sponsoring wrestling?

A Yes. Wrestling sponsorship peaked in Division I in 1974-75 when 64.7 percent of Division I institutions (154) sponsored the sport. It peaked in all divisions in 1971-72 with a 59.8 percent sponsorship. By 1981-82, 46.1 percent of the NCAA membership sponsored wrestling. In 2000-01, 21.4 percent of the NCAA membership in all three divisions sponsored the sport. There were 87 wrestling teams in Division I in 2000-01, down from 146 in 1981-82. In all three divisions, the number of institutions sponsoring wrestling has declined from 363 in 1981-82 to 225 in 2000-01.

(Source: NCAA 1982-2001 Sports Sponsorship Participation Report; NCAA Annual Reports, 1971-1977.)

* *

Q When did the decline of wrestling sponsorship occur?

A When wrestling peaked in Division I in 1974-75, seven Division I schools had added it from the previous year, bringing its sponsorship up to 64.7 percent of that classification (with 154), and 12 Division II schools had dropped it, bringing that classification's sponsorship down to 45.9 percent (with 183). By 1976-77, 52.5 percent of NCAA institutions sponsored the sport. By 1981-82, 46.1 percent of the NCAA membership sponsored wrestling. By 1989-90, only 33.6 percent of the NCAA membership sponsored it. In 2000-01, only 21.4 percent of the NCAA membership sponsored it. In Division I, wrestling was at 64.7 percent sponsorship in 1974-75, 63.9 percent in 1975-76 and 61.3 percent in 1976-77. By 1981-82, 52.7 percent of NCAA Division I institutions sponsored wrestling, and by 1989-90, only 37.8 percent sponsored it. By 2001, 27.1 percent of Division I institutions sponsored wrestling.

(Source: NCAA 1982-2001 Sports Sponsorship Participation Report; NCAA Annual Reports, 1971-1977.)

* *

Q Has there been a decline in the number of NCAA institutions sponsoring men's gymnastics?

A Yes. Sponsorship of men's gymnastics peaked in all divisions in 1971-72 when 18.7 percent of the membership sponsored it. Division I membership peaked in 1981-82 when 21.3 percent of the division sponsored the sport, with 59 teams total in Division I.

In 2000-01, 6.5 percent of Division I members (21 institutions) sponsored the sport. In all three divisions, there were 79 institutions sponsoring men's gymnastics in 1981-82 and 24 institutions sponsoring the sport in 2000-01.

(Source: NCAA 1982-2001 Sports Sponsorship Participation Report.)

* *

Q When did the decline of men's gymnastic sponsorship occur?

A Men's gymnastics sponsorship peaked in all divisions in 1971-72 and then declined to 13.4 percent by 1976-77. It further declined to 10 percent by 1981-82, and 5.9 percent by 1988-89. In Division I, where most men's gymnastics programs are sponsored, 21.3 percent sponsored men's gymnastics in 1981-82. By 1988-89, only 13.7 percent of the Division I membership sponsored it. And by 2000-01, only 6.5 percent of the Division I membership sponsored it.

(Source: NCAA 1982-2001 Sports Sponsorship Participation Report.)

* *

Q Has there been a decline in the number of NCAA institutions sponsoring men's swimming and diving?

A Yes. Men's swimming and diving peaked in 1971-72 when 57.6 percent of the membership (382 institutions) sponsored the sport. By number of programs, the sport peaked in 1976-77, when there were 394 programs (then 54.5 percent of the membership). There were 181 Division I institutions sponsoring men's swimming and diving in 1981-82 representing 65.3 percent of the Division I membership. By 1988-89, there were 54.6 percent of Division I institutions sponsoring the sport. In 2000-01, 147 institutions sponsored men's swimming and diving, representing 45.8 percent of the membership.

(Source: NCAA 1982-2001 Sports Sponsorship Participation Report)

* *

Q Has the number of men participating in swimming and diving decreased?

A Yes, but only slightly because of increases in squad sizes. In 1981-82, 7,746 student-athletes in all three divisions participated in men's swimming and diving. In 2000-01, 7,265 student-athletes in all three divisions participated in men's swimming and diving.

(Source: NCAA 1982-2001 Sports Sponsorship Participation Report)

* *

Q Has sponsorship of football at NCAA institutions increased or declined?

A Since 1981-82, sponsorship of football has increased slightly in Division I, where 72.3 percent of institutions in the division sponsored the sport in 2000-01, up from 67.5 percent in 1981-82. Sponsorship in Division II has decreased slightly, with 50.8 percent of institutions in the division sponsoring the sport in 2000-01, down from 59.3 in 1981-82. Sponsorship of football in Division III has decreased, with 51.0 of institutions in the division sponsoring the sport, down from 61.8 in 1981-82.

(Source: NCAA 1982-2001 Sports Sponsorship Participation Report.)

* *

Q Has there been a decline in the average squad size for football?

A No. The average squad size in Division I-A football has gone up to 115.7 in 2000-01 from 103.1 in 1981-82. The average squad size in all three divisions has gone up to 94.2 in 2000-01 from 82.0 in 1981-82.

(Source: NCAA 1982-2001 Sports Sponsorship Participation Report.)

* *

Q Has participation in football increased or decreased?

A Participation in football has increased in all three divisions since 1981-82. In 2000-01, 56,804 student-athletes participated in football in all three divisions, up from 40,733 in 1981-82. Division I has the highest number of participants in the sport with 24,383. Division III is next highest with 19,161 student-athletes participating in football. Division II has 13,260 participants.

(Source: NCAA 1982-2001 Sports Sponsorship Participation Report.)

Scholarship dollars

Q How much does an average institution spend annually on scholarship money by gender?

A At the average Division I-A institution in 2000-01, men received $2,229,000 in grants-in-aid. Women received $1,528,000 in grants-in-aid.

(Source: 2001 NCAA Revenues and Expenses of Divisions I and II Intercollegiate Athletics Programs.)

Recruiting

Q How much does an average Division I-A institution spend each year on recruiting its student-athletes?

A The average Division I-A institution spends $373,000 each year recruiting male student-athletes and $153,000 recruiting female student-athletes.

(Source: 2001 NCAA Revenues and Expenses of Divisions I and II Intercollegiate Athletics Programs.)

* *

Q How much does an average Division I-AA institution spend each year on recruiting its student-athletes?

A The average Division I-AA institution spends $108,000 each year recruiting male student-athletes and $56,000 each year recruiting female student-athletes.

(Source: 2001 NCAA Revenues and Expenses of Divisions I and II Intercollegiate Athletics Programs.)

* *

Q How much does an average Division I-AAA (no football) institution spend each year on recruiting its student-athletes?

A The average Division I-AAA (no football) institution spends $70,000 each year recruiting male student-athletes and $53,000 each year recruiting female student-athletes.

(Source: 2001 NCAA Revenues and Expenses of Divisions I and II Intercollegiate Athletics Programs.)

Coaches' salaries

Q How much does the average Division I-A institution spend each year on coaches' salaries for its teams?

A The average Division I-A institution spends $2,791,000 on coaches' salaries for men's teams and $1,258,000 on coaches' salaries for women's teams.

(Source: 2001 NCAA Revenues and Expenses of Divisions I and II Intercollegiate Athletics Programs.)

* *

Q How much does the average Division I-AAA (no football) institution spend each year on coaches' salaries for its teams?

A The average Division I-AAA (no football) institution spends $610,000 on coaches' salaries for its men's teams and $505,000 on coaches' salaries for its women's teams.

(Source: 2001 NCAA Revenues and Expenses of Divisions I and II Intercollegiate Athletics Programs.)

Overall expenditures

Q What is the average expenditure per athlete in Division I-A?

A The average expenditure per athlete in Division I-A is $34,000 per male student-athlete and $20,000 per female student-athlete.

(Source: 2001 NCAA Revenues and Expenses of Divisions I and II Intercollegiate Athletics Programs.)

* *

Q How much does the average Division I-A institution spend on its athletics programs for each gender?

A The average Division I-A institution spends $10,900,000 on all its men's teams, $4,600,000 on all its women's teams and $7,700,000 on expenses that benefit both genders.

(Source: 2001 NCAA Revenues and Expenses of Divisions I and II Intercollegiate Athletics Programs.)

* *

Q How much does the average Division I-AAA (no football) institution spend on its athletics programs for each gender?

A The average Division I-AAA (no football) institution spends $2,130,000 on all its men's teams, $1,940,000 on all its women's teams and $$1,420,000 on expenses that benefit both genders.

(Source: 2001 NCAA Revenues and Expenses of Divisions I and II Intercollegiate Athletics Programs.)

Revenue

Q How many NCAA institutions show a profit in their athletics program in Division I-A?

A The number of institutions where revenue exceeds expenses in Division I-A is 40, or 35 percent of institutions in that classification. This calculation does not include institutional support and does include fund-raising done by the athletics department, ticket sales, funds from student fees to support athletics, bowl games, royalties and the NCAA revenue distribution.

(Source: 2001 NCAA Revenues and Expenses of Divisions I and II Intercollegiate Athletics Programs.)

* *

Q Do other NCAA institutions in other divisions show a profit?

A Yes. Nine institutions in Division I-AA showed revenue exceeding expenses (8 percent); six institutions in Division I-AAA (no football) showed revenue exceeding expenses (7 percent); seven institutions in Division II that do sponsor football showed revenue exceeding expenses (5 percent); and seven institutions in Division II that do not sponsor football showed revenue exceeding expenses (6 percent). Division III institutions are not asked about revenue generation. In other words, 7.7 percent of the total NCAA membership showed a profit in 2001. This calculation does not include institutional support and does include fund-raising done by the athletics department, ticket sales, funds from student fees to support athletics, bowl games, royalties and the NCAA revenue distribution.

(Source: 2001 NCAA Revenues and Expenses of Divisions I and II Intercollegiate Athletics Programs.)